Cash at Judge’s Bungalow: SC Collegium Agree on In-House Inquiry, Allahabad Advocates Oppose his Repatriation
Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Mar 21: The Supreme Court on Friday unanimously agreed to initiate an in-house enquiry into allegations against Delhi High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, following reports of unaccounted cash found in his official residence, even as the Allahabad High Court Bar Association (AHCBA) strongly opposed the proposed repatriation of the tainted judge to the Allahabad High Court, his parent organisation.
As the reports in Friday morning papers of alleged recovery of huge amount of cash, suspected to be unaccounted, from the residence of the judge took the country by storm, the senior judges of the Supreme Court had met in the morning to discuss the issue. Twelve Benches of the top court did not assemble at the usual court hours.
Media reports said the cash was found by fire tenders when a blaze broke out in the judge’s residence on March 14, during the night of Holi festival. The judge was not present at his house. His family had called emergency services. After the fire was doused, the police found a huge amount of cash inside a room, leading to official entries being made about the recovery of unaccounted money amounting to Rs.15 crores.
The information about the cash was passed on to the police. It travelled through the government echelons and was finally conveyed to the Chief Justice of India. Taking cognisance of the matter, the SC and the collegium unanimously decided to repatriate justice Varma to Allahabad High Court. The Bar has also called for a General House meeting to take a “suitable decision” on March 24.
Simultaneous to the in-house inquiry, the Supreme Court Collegium is also in favour of the judge’s transfer out of Delhi back to Allahabad High Court, from where he had been transferred to the national capital in October 2021. However, following objections raised in some quarters about letting the errant judge go merely with transfer, the apex court clarified that the process to transfer Justice Varma was unrelated to the inquiry into alleged recovery of the cash at his home. It said the in-house investigation is being done as per the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court, and the transfer has nothing to do with the investigation.
The Supreme Court flagged “misinformation and rumours” as the reasons why Justice Varma’s transfer to Allahabad High Court was linked to the cash recovery. “There is misinformation and rumours being spread with regard to the incident at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma… On receiving the information, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court commenced the in-house enquiry procedure collecting evidence and information,” the Supreme Court said in a press note.
The Delhi High Court Chief Justice, who began the inquiry before the Collegium met on Thursday, would submit a report to the Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, the Supreme Court said. “The report will be examined and processed for further and necessary action.” Justice Varma is the second senior-most judge in the Delhi High Court and a member of the Collegium,
“The proposal was examined by the Collegium comprising of the Chief Justice of India and four senior most Judges of the Supreme Court on 20th March 2025, and thereafter letters were written to the consultee Judges of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justices of the High Courts concerned and Mr Justice Yashwant Varma,” the Supreme Court said in the press note.
But the advocates in the Allahabad High Court has taken strong objections against Justice Varma’s transfer back to Allahabad. In a strongly-worded letter stating that ‘they aren’t trash bin’, the AHCBA has opposed the proposed repatriation Justice Varma.
Issued by the AHCBA president advocate Anil Tiwari, the letter said the lawyers in the High Court are taken aback after discovering that the Supreme Court has repatriated Justice Yashwant Varma back to Allahabad High Court on the ground of his involvement in corruption wherein a sum of ₹15 crores has been found in his bungalow by the fire department, as stated in media reports.
“This decision of the collegium of the Supreme Court raises a serious question as to whether the Allahabad High Court is trash bin? This matter becomes important when we examine the current situation wherein the Allahabad High Court is short of judges and despite the continuous problems, new judges have not appointed since last many years,” the letter reads. Justice Varma was elevated as a judge in Allahabad High Court and was transferred from Allahabad to Delhi High Court in October, 2021.
Justice Varma graduated in law from Rewa University in 1992 and got enrolled as an advocate in 1992. He practised mainly on the civil side handling varied nature of matters relating to constitutional, industrial disputes, corporate, taxation, environment and allied branches of law. He was elevated as additional judge of Allahabad HC in October 2014 and took oath as permanent judge in February 2016. He was also the special counsel for the Allahabad High Court from 2006 till elevation.
The new controversy in the higher judiciary has erupted amidst a simmering one regarding Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, who had reportedly made comments of a communal tinge during a speech at an event organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad on December 8 last year.
The Supreme Court’s in-house enquiry process starts with the appointment of a three-member fact-finding committee of two Chief Justices from other High Courts and a High Court judge to probe the allegations. The judge in question can appear before the committee and have his or her say. If the committee reports sufficient material to remove the judge, the CJI can ask the latter to retire voluntarily. In case, the judge refuses to do so, the CJI can ask the Chief Justice of the High Court to suspend his work and intimate the President and the Prime Minister about the allegations along with the committee report, clearing the way for removal.
Judges of constitutional courts can also be removed by a parliamentary process on the grounds of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity.” The Judges (Inquiry Act), 1968 regulates the procedure to investigate the judge and the presentation of an address for his removal by the Parliament to the President. The motion for removal of a constitutional court judge must be supported by a special majority of the total membership of the House and of at least two-thirds of the members of the House present and voting.
The issue of recovery of cash from the residence of a sitting judge was also raised in the Rajya Sabha. Raising the issue in the morning session, Congress MP Jairam Ramesh also sought the Chair’s response on judicial accountability and reminded him about a pending notice regarding impeachment of a judge of the Allahabad High Court. Pointing out that 50 members of Parliament had submitted a notice to the chairman regarding certain remarks that were made by a judge of the Allahabad High Court.
On the impeachment matter, the Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar said he had received a representation from 55 members of the Rajya Sabha. Mr Dhankhar further informed the members that he has taken all necessary steps to get verification from the signatories to the representation. “Most members responded positively, helping me perform my duty,” he said, and appealed to the remaining members to respond to the emails sent to them. Mr Dhankhar further said if the number of signatories is above 50, he would proceed accordingly.
